|
| Separation of Church and State |
| Monday, December 20, 2004 |
| For those who cannot understand the English language, the Constitution will be interpreted for you:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
There would be no established, national church for the united thirteen states. To say it another way: there would be no "Church of the United States." The government is prohibited from setting up a state religion, such as Britain has, but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion. Thomas Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" between church and state comment was made in a letter to a group of Baptist clergymen January 1, 1802 in Danbury, Connecticut, who feared the Congregationalists Church would become the state-sponsored religion. Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptist Association that the First Amendment guaranteed that there would be no establishment of any one denomination over another. It was never intended for our governing bodies to be "separated" from Christianity and its principles or any other religion and its principles. The "wall" was understood as one directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. It keeps the government from running the church. Anyone who understood the importance of religious freedom to the founding fathers would draw this conclusion.
"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite from what is being made of it today. It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. The purpose of the separation of church and state in American society is not to exclude the voice of religion from public debate, but to provide a context of religious freedom where the insights of each religious tradition can be set forth and tested. As Justice Douglas wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in the United States vs. Ballard case in 1944: The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only "forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship" but also "safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion." The First Amendment was a safe-guard so that the State can have no jurisdiction over the Church. Its purpose was to protect the Church, not to disestablish it.
It is funny that the Leftists, who speak out of one side of their mouth about "rights and freedoms" are the first to try to restrict or impede those same in others. |
posted by Jack Mercer @ 12/20/2004 10:57:00 AM   |
|
| 4 Comments: |
-
You should take your own advice... when you wrote me that I was making too much of democrates, you were of course right... but, by using terms like 'leftest' I think you are inviting yourself to be misunderstood. You will find in my blog tha I don't say anything about who I am going to vote for. I talk about issues. I like this essay a lot, but I find the work obscured by the use of 'leftists' Let's face it, those old political terms are meaningless -- a'all political formulas are fiction; only the force produced is real,' is a quote I opened my last book with.
-
Thanks for your comments, Johnny! ALWAYS look forward to them!
I don't mind telling anyone who I voted for. I voted for Mike Poroutka of the Constitution Party for president, and a variety of Republicans and Democrats and Independents for the rest. I vote on principle, not party, ideology or convenience. Who I vote for is a part of what I am, and has everything to do with my political viewpoint. I don't mind telling "conservatives" (so called) that they are wrong or "liberals" when they are. (Just like you, Johnny!) But the term liberal and conservative is no longer applicable in today's English, therefore I have adopted the terms: leftist (which everyone should understand) and radical (which few people understand). Both of these groups are intent on ultimate control, but their methods just sometime differ. Bottom line is that the outcome is the same in either case. I won't defend either. I am not an ideologue. But I will be careful, Johnny, like you said...I think you're right about my tone, and it doesn't invite dialogue. Sorry, Dude--I'll be a little more careful next time.
You said:
...all political formulas are fiction; only the force produced is real,'
COOL QUOTE! Mind if I add it to my blog in an article?
-
the quote is from the book, "irregular modern warfare," which I used during the research of my book, one war. Leftists is too vague, too, I should think. I am interested in the question of whether a two party system is just bullshit, too. . . . I think it is reductionist in the extreme, but, to be honest, my time on this planet is best spent trying to effect minds of the future, not votes in my time. I effect the minds just by exposing them to ideas that made me a better person, etc... and by making them laugh at themselves. Everyone should laugh at themselves a hell of a lot more. Not to mention, people are much more individualistic than we think sometimes, I guess... they just have few choices to express this which reward and all that. Like voting for the constitution party (which, boof I am, I don't know anything about. Did your vote have any effect, jack? That is the question. I think sometimes if I really cared about being part of the solution, I would go down to the pound and save every pup I could every day, just to stop a few of them being killed... spend all my money doing this... etc.... be some kind of new monk, a flannery o'conner character for the present... hmm, I think I just came up with an idea for a story.... my crazy preacher of the post modern haranging people on the street corner, thinking he is a modern socrates teling people to question everything, when he is actually being taken as merely someone who is telling everyone to think like others... I think that is my problem too. Maybe yours too.
-
You may be right, Johnny...but I think our overall goal is to get people to think. Every time my 10 year old says "Daddy, I feel..." she automatically stops herself now and says, "think..." I realize I shouldn't be as hard on her as I often am, but know that in this future world thought and reason is going to have to trump emotion and ideology.
There's still room in the world for constructs like faith and love, Johnny, but they always have to be used in the context of reason.
Happy holiday to you and your misses, Man!
j
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
You should take your own advice... when you wrote me that I was making too much of democrates, you were of course right... but, by using terms like 'leftest' I think you are inviting yourself to be misunderstood. You will find in my blog tha I don't say anything about who I am going to vote for. I talk about issues. I like this essay a lot, but I find the work obscured by the use of 'leftists' Let's face it, those old political terms are meaningless -- a'all political formulas are fiction; only the force produced is real,' is a quote I opened my last book with.